The Shale Tipping Point: The Relationship of Drilling to Crime, Traffic Fatalities, STDs, and Rents in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio

Transcription

1 The Shale Tipping Point: The Relationship of Drilling to Crime, Traffic Fatalities, STDs, and Rents in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio Abridged Version Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative December 214

2 See for the full report and for the online technical appendix. About the Authors Mark Price, Keystone Research Center s Labor Economist, holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Utah. Stephen Herzenberg, KRC s Executive Director, holds a Ph.D. in economics from MIT. Diana Polson, research and project consultant at the Keystone Research Center, holds a Ph.D. in political science from CUNY Graduate Center. Sharon Ward, Director of the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, received her BA from the State University of New York at Albany, and studied at the Rockefeller Institute of Public Policy and the Fells Institute of Government. Ellis Wazeter was a summer intern with the Keystone Research Center. He is a freshman pursuing a BS in industrial and labor relations at Cornell University. Luis E. Basurto was the 214 Economic Analysis Research Network intern with the Keystone Research Center. He is pursuing a BBA in economics and finance with a minor in applied math at the University of Texas Pan American. Acknowledgements This project is supported through grants from the Heinz Endowments, Stoneman Family Foundation, Hillsdale Foundation and Park Foundation. The Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative wishes to thank its funders for their ongoing support. Thanks to Frank Mauro and Michele Mattingly of the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York for their helpful comments. Thanks to Ellen Lyon, Keystone Research Center Communications Director and its Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC), for editorial assistance and guidance, and to Stephanie Frank, KRC Office Manager, for laying out the report and producing the charts and figures.

3 Contents Executive Summary 3 Drilling, Employment, and Population Trends 5 Crime 8 Sexually Transmitted Diseases 13 Motor Vehicle Fatalities 15 Rents 16 Conclusion: Modest Job Gains, Multiple Community Impacts 19 1

4 2 This page intentially left blank.

5 Executive Summary How does hydrofracking affect the rural communities at the epicenter of drilling activity? A rich body of literature and lore from the Mountain West exists: of boomtowns, bar fights, rising rents and rising crime that accompanied oil and gas development in Wyoming and Colorado in the 198s and 199s, and more recently in North Dakota shale oil fields. Considerable prior evidence shows that shale development has produced some of the same impacts in Pennsylvania. Academic researchers, advocacy groups such as Food and Water Watch, and the Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative s own case studies of two high-intensity Pennsylvania drilling counties (Greene and Tioga) document traffic increases, road damage, rising rents, and growing demands on police and other first responders. (For complete references, see the full Shale Tipping Point research report, online at These impacts are in addition to the environmental and public health impacts associated with hydrofracking, ranging from incidence of childhood asthma in Texas to water contamination in Pennsylvania to seismic activity in Ohio and more recently in Oklahoma. In many states, drilling activity is regulated by state officials, leaving local officials to manage the consequences. A better understanding of what impacts are likely to occur and when to expect them can help local governments and residents anticipate and plan for--or take steps to avoid--the negative community consequences of shale development. In this report, the Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative examined potential shale-related impacts, that have been identified in our prior work and that of others, to determine at what point the effects become evident. We looked at three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) and divided counties in those states into three levels of drilling activity low, moderate and high to better understand the relationship between the density of drilling and the severity of impacts. We used non-drilling rural and non-drilling urban counties as control groups. Our analysis looked at crime, traffic fatalities, sexually transmitted diseases and housing, and found evidence of impacts in each area in high-drilling communities. We relied, of necessity, on county-level (and, in the case of housing, multi-county) data, although the impact of drilling is often localized within counties. As a result of this mismatch between the geography of drilling s impact and our data sources, the impacts on crime, traffic fatalities, STDs, and rents are likely to be underestimated. Our research confirmed community impacts in six high-drilling Pennsylvania counties. We found a statistical relationship between well density and increases in crime, rents, traffic fatalities and STDs. Increases also were apparent in medium- and low-drilling counties in many cases, but do not ordinarily register as statistically significant. It is reasonable to expect that, if the pace of drilling increases in low- and medium-drilling counties, impacts will grow to match those in high-drilling counties. Our research includes findings in the following areas: Employment: Drilling has had a only a limited impact on employment in the three states, particularly when measured as a share of total employment. The bulk of the employment gains were in the six high-drilling counties and those were modest. Total growth in mining and natural resources employment in the three states from 25 to 212 was just over 25, jobs, or.22% of all employment. 3

6 Population: We found no evidence of significant population growth in any of the states resulting from drilling. Crime: Violent crime increased 17.7% and property crime 1.8% in the six high-drilling counties, compared to no statistically significant increases in medium- and low-drilling counties. Traffic fatalities: Between 25 and 21, traffic fatalities involving trucks in the six high-drilling counties increased by a statistically significant 27.8%, compared to 2 to 25. STDs: Since 25, rates of chlamydia infection across all the drilling counties increased 24% to 27%, compared to non-drilling counties. Housing: Rents in the regions with high-drilling counties all increased from 25 to 212 with the biggest increases in median (1.2%) and high-end (12.3%) rents. In human terms, in the high-drilling countries, about 13 more violent crimes, 819 more property crimes and 16 more cases of chlamydia occurred each year by 212 compared to 25 (i.e., before the increase in drilling). Residents, most of whom gain no benefit from the gas industry, also bear the risk of higher fatalities from traffic accidents involving trucks and of higher rents. Local governments must pay for additional first responders and staff to address rising crime, traffic fatalities, and STDs. This analysis offers clear evidence that a high concentration of drilling over a relatively short period of time is a recipe for significant, multiple impacts. Trends that are apparent in Pennsylvania are absent in West Virginia, perhaps as a result of slower and less concentrated drilling development, and are hinted at in Ohio, where drilling accelerated in 212, the final year of our analysis. Local and state governments may be able to avoid or mitigate the most severe impacts by better controlling the pace of drilling, perhaps with county rig limits, or longer and more thorough permit and water review processes. States should enact severance taxes to help ensure that the industry, not taxpayers, foots the bill for impacts. 4

7 Drilling, Employment, and Population Trends Since 22, 8,654 have been drilled in 12 counties in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. Figure 1 shows the number of hydraulic fracking or unconventional drilled by year and state in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. Pennsylvania accounts for four-fifths (72%) of the drilled across the three states since 22. Although drilling started in earnest first in West Virginia, at its peak in 28 it was only one-quarter the peak drilling level in Pennsylvania. Significant drilling activity in Ohio did not begin until 212, the final year of this study, when it accounted for just over 1% of the drilled in that year. Six high-activity Pennsylvania counties the darkest counties on Map 1 account for more than half (52%) of the drilled across all 21 counties in the three states. In each of the high-drilling counties, at least 517 have been drilled since 22. In no other county in the three states have more than 23 been drilled. Figure 1 Number of Unconventional Wells Drilled By Year in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio 2 number of unconventional drilled Pennsylvania West Virginia Ohio Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey (WVGES), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 5

8 Map 1 Crawford 3 Mercer 5 Lawrence 19 Beaver 25 Washington 755 Greene 517 Erie Butler 174 Allegheny 22 Venango 5 Fayette 23 Clarion 24 Armstrong 146 Warren 4 Forest 18 Westmoreland 23 Jefferson 38 Indiana 42 Somerset 26 McKean 61 Elk 61 Clearfield 147 Cambria 7 Bedford 1 Cameron 15 Blair 6 Potter 71 Centre 64 Huntingdon 1 Fulton Clinton 97 Tioga 811 Lycoming 662 Mifflin Juniata Perry Franklin Cumberland Adams Union Snyder Montour Dauphin York Bradford 1126 Sullivan 68 Columbia 3 Schuylkill Lancaster Susquehanna 646 Wyoming 112 Luzerne 2 Berks Chester Wayne 5 Monroe Carbon Northumberlan Northampton Lebanon Lackawanna 2 Lehigh Bucks Montgomery Delaware Pike Philadelphia Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative. No, urban No, rural 1 to 99 1 to or more Seventeen other counties (1 in West Virginia, six in Pennsylvania, and one in Ohio) account for 3% of the drilled from 22 to 212. For the purpose of our analysis, we grouped 12 counties by number of, based on the pattern of drilling in each of the states, in order to assess whether the concentration of was related to the incidence of social and human service impacts. We defined high-drilling counties as those with at least 4 (six counties), medium-drilling counties as those with (17 counties) and lowdrilling counties as those with fewer than 1 (79 counties). Drilling has had a modest impact on employment in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, particularly when measured as a share of total employment (Mauro et al, 213). The bulk of employment impacts are found in the six high-drilling counties. Drilling-related jobs measured at the county level using a broad aggregate of extractive industries called mining and natural resources employment rose by 138% (7,121 jobs) from 25 to 212, while total employment (across all industries) grew by 1.3% (or 18,932 jobs). Total employment in the three states was 11.3 million in 212, and total growth of mining and natural resources employment in these three states from 25 to 212 was just over 25,, or.22% of all employment. In the 17 medium-drilling counties, drilling-related employment grew by 8% (1,126 jobs) from 25 to 212, and total employment actually fell. 6

9 Figure 2 shows the total employment change from 25 to 212 in the six Pennsylvania high-drilling counties as compared to four other groups of Pennsylvania counties. Figure 2 The bulk of employment impacts were in six high-drilling counties in Pennsylvania 12% 1% 1.3% 8% 6% 4% 2% %.3% -2% -4% 4 or more 1 to % 1 to % Rural* -.8% Urban* *The figures here represent employment in counties in rural and urban counties with no drilled between 22 and 212. A county is defined as rural if the 25 population per square mile in that county is below its corresponding statewide population per square mile. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data. While Carroll County, Ohio has had only 112 drilled, drilling only started in 211, and nearly 1 (94) of these were drilled in 212. Carroll s recent uptick in drilling resembles the six Pennsylvania high-drilling counties. Little evidence exists of significant population growth resulting from drilling in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. The six high-drilling counties in Pennsylvania had a population increase of 2,4 people, or.4%, between 25 and 212. Figure 3 shows that non-drilling Pennsylvania counties (both rural and urban) saw larger population increases than drilling counties, although it is of note that in the six high-drilling counties the population was declining prior to the start of drilling (1998 to 25). Figure 3 The six high-drilling counties had a population increase of 2,4 people or.4% between 25 and 212 5% 4% 3% 3.4% 4.4% 2% 1%.4% % -1% -.9% -.4% -2% 4 or more 1 to to 99 Rural* Urban* *The figures here represent employment in counties in rural and urban counties with no drilled between 22 and 212. A county is defined as rural if the 25 population per square mile in that county is below its corresponding statewide population per square mile. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 7

10 In West Virginia and Ohio, non-drilling counties (rural and urban) also experienced more population growth than drilling counties from 25 to 212. One challenge in analyzing population trends is that county-level population data may not quickly or accurately capture population shifts that result from out-of-state workers who still consider their primary residence to be in their home state. The construction sector is important in terms of employment in shale development, and it is not uncommon for construction workers, especially in rural areas, to travel long distances for work. Even so, while population changes may be understated in high-drilling counties, evidence of large population effects is weak. Crime As noted, natural resource extraction booms tend to lead to an influx of out-of-state workers, including transient young men making higher-than-average wages. With this influx and the extraction activity, local traffic increases, area bars and restaurants fill up, and small town life changes. Numerous studies have found that with this influx comes an increase in crime. For example, Headwaters Economics (213, p. 13) found that counties in the American West that derive more of their income from oil and gas extraction for a longer period of time experienced higher violent and property crime rates than other counties. Murray and Ooms (28) documented increases in crime during the height of gas extraction in Denton and Wise counties in Texas, and in Faulkner and White counties in Arkansas. In Sublette County, Wyoming, Jacquet (25) found that arrests grew faster than the population between 1995 and 24 and showed links between the growth in gas drilling and the growth in crime rate. Headwaters Economics (29) found a sharp increase in crime in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, that coincided with a boom in oil and gas extraction. Drug-related arrests increased from 9 in 22 to 45 in 26. In Williston, North Dakota, there has been an increase in reported rape (about one complaint each week, most often date rape, say local police). They rarely received these types of complaints before the gas boom (Ellis 211). In Pennsylvania, the influx of well-paid young men who work in (or are connected to) the gas industry has led to reports of increases in drunk driving, assaults, domestic disturbances and prostitution (Levy 211). The Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative case study of Greene County, PA, found that arrests and calls to police increased during the height of the gas boom (Herzenberg, Polson, and Price 214). Police in Cumberland Township, a center of heavy drilling, reported that calls doubled between 28 and 211. Arrests in Cumberland Township rose for DUIs, theft, bar fights, assaults, and prostitution. In Tioga County, PA, drilling was associated with increases in crime and increased demands on emergency service personnel. More crime has meant higher costs to the county as the number of new criminal cases jumped 25% between 21 and 211. Mansfield and Wellsboro, Tioga County s two population hubs, also saw calls to police and arrests increase with the gas boom. Between 29 and 211, calls to the Mansfield Police Department tripled. 8

11 Wellsboro saw a spike in traffic and other citations. Misdemeanor arrests rose by 82% from 29 to 211. One Tioga County resource organization for sexual assault victims reported seeing a rise in the number of sexual assaults (some with the use of date rape drugs) and women seeking domestic violence services during the height of the boom (Ward, Polson, Price 214). In Wetzel County, West Virginia, interviewees did not report increases in crime or 911 calls. The Sheriff s office did note a slight increase in DUI arrests and an increase in traffic citations. County commissioners reported complaints from citizens about traffic problems and hazardous driving by trucking companies. Vehicle accidents increased from 194 in 27 to 31 in 212 (O Leary 214). Interviewees in Ohio reported a quadrupling of calls to the sheriff between 211 and 213; that, plus a doubling of traffic accidents primarily involving heavy trucks, had reportedly increased the workload for the sheriff s office (Woodrum 214). In this report, we used county-level crime data to more rigorously examine changes in crime by county in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. Since drilling usually concentrates in parts of counties, the reliance on county data may understate drilling s impacts. Violent crime: In analysis looking across three states, we observed a statistically significant increase in violent crime of 17.7% in the six high-drilling counties in Pennsylvania between 25 and 212. (Figure 4). Figure 4 Violent Crime in Pennsylvania by Drilling Intensity violent crime per 1, people indexed to 25 (25=1) or more 1 to to 99 No, rural No, Urban Note. Violent crime is defined here as reported offenses for murder, negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Pennsylvania State Police and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 9

12 Figure 5 Percent Change in Violent Crime Rates in the Heaviest Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 15% 12% 123% 13% 9% 6% 3% % -3% -16% Urban, no -6% Rural, no 28% Bradford Tioga 6% Washington 4% Lycoming 16% Susquehanna Greene Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Pennsylvania State Police and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. This increase corresponds to about 13 more violent crimes annually in these six counties above the 737 violent crimes reported in 25. During this same period, the violent crime rate was down in both urban and rural communities without drilled. Property Crime. In our statistical analysis looking across all three states, we observed an increase in property crime of 1.8% in the high-drilling counties in Pennsylvania. This corresponds to 819 more property crimes annually over and above the 7,587 property crimes reported in 25. For the most part, we did not observe a statistically significant increase in violent and property crime in moderateand low-drilling counties in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 1 Rural Pennsylvania counties without drilled, on the other hand, experienced a property-crime rate increase slightly below those of heavy-drilling counties. The most abrupt increases in property crimes occurred in the two highest-drilling counties, Bradford and Tioga, with increases of 83% and 54% respectively, and in Greene County, with a 53% increase in property crime (Figure 6). 1 We did, however, observe a statistically significant increase in violent crime in low-drilling counties. 1

13 Figure 6 Percent Change in Property Crime Rates in the Heaviest Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 1% 8% 83% 6% 54% 53% 4% 2% % 16% 9% 1% 8% -5% -2% Urban, no Rural, no Bradford Tioga Washington Lycoming Susquehanna Greene Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Pennsylvania State Police and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Drug and alcohol crime. Between 25 and 212 in Pennsylvania, drug abuse rates rose 48% in the highest-drilling counties, or about 6 more cases per year (Figure 7). No other county category saw drug abuse increases of more than about half this amount. Figure 7 Drug Abuse Rose 48% in the Heaviest Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 6% 5% 48% 4% 3% 2% 1% % 14% 25% 1% -1% -2% -2% -3% 4 or more 1 to to 99 Rural* Urban* *The figures here represent employment in counties in rural and urban counties with no drilled between 22 and 212. A county is defined as rural if the 25 population per square mile in that county is below its corresponding statewide population per square mile. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Pennsylvania State Police and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 11

14 Figure 8 DUI Offenses Were Up 65% in the Heaviest Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 8% 7% 6% 65% 5% 4% 42% 3% 2% 1% % 4 or more % 1 to 399 6% 1 to 99 Rural* 5% Urban* *The figures here represent employment in counties in rural and urban counties with no drilled between 22 and 212. A county is defined as rural if the 25 population per square mile in that county is below its corresponding statewide population per square mile. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Pennsylvania State Police and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. From 25 to 212, DUI offenses were up 65% in high-drilling counties, compared to 42% in rural counties without drilling (Figure 8). The gap between the 65% and 42% increase amounts to an additional 4 cases per year across the six high-drilling counties. Drug abuse and DUI offenses did not increase substantially, and in some cases fell in moderate- and low-drilling counties. Arrest Data. The Pennsylvania State Police track data on arrests as well as reported offenses. Data on serious arrests the sum of arrests for violent and property crimes - corroborate the violent and property crime statistics (Figure 9). The increase in arrests was primarily for aggravated assault and larceny-theft. 12

15 Figure 9 Serious Arrests v. Serious Offenses in Counties with 4 or More Wells, serious arrests & serious offenses per 1, people indexed to 25 (25=1) Arrests Offenses Note. Serious crimes are reported offenses for murder, megligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motoer vehicle theft, and arson. Serious arrests are those instances in which a person is arrested, cited, or summoned for a serious offense. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Center for Disease Control and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. In West Virginia, crime data reveal no clear relationship between increased drilling and crime rates. In Ohio, in the one medium-drilling county - Carroll property and violent crime have increased since drilling began in 211 (we examine the change from 29 to 212). Ohio violent and property crime rates also rose in areas with no drilling since 29 (by 8% and 5% respectively) so it is too early to know whether drilling contributed in a causal way to the uptick in Carroll. Sexually Transmitted Diseases Sexually transmitted disease rates have increased in some areas where gas workers, mostly young men, enter a new town en masse to work in the gas (or related) industries. Food and Water Watch found that in Pennsylvania, the average number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases was 62 percent higher in high-drilling counties than in counties with no drilling (Food and Water Watch 213). In Bradford County (which is the highest number of in the three-state region) the Troy Community Hospital reported an increase in STDs connected to the growth of the industry (Covey 211). A spike in sexually transmitted diseases has also been reported in high-drilling areas in other states, including Carrizzo Springs, Texas; Mesa County, Colorado; and McKenzie County, North Dakota (Vaughan 212; Redifer et al 27; Eligon 213). Chlamydia rates doubled between 21 and 211 in McKenzie County, North Dakota (Eligon 213). In our case studies of high-drilling counties, Pennsylvania s Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hospital in Tioga County attributed an increase in sexually transmitted diseases to increased drilling and a rise in the number of out-of-state workers (Ward, Polson, and Price 214). Other interviewees in case study 13

16 research did not report increases in STDs. In this report we examined STD trends statistically, relying again on county-level data. Since 25, there has been a statistically significant increase of 24% to 27% in rates of infection for chlamydia across all categories of drilling counties (high-, medium- and low-) compared to non-drilling counties. (Figure 1) We also observed an increase in gonorrhea infection rates in high- and mediumdrilling counties, but the difference with non-drilling counties was not statistically significant (Figure 11). There is no clear relationship between rates of infection for chlamydia and gonorrhea and drilling activity in West Virginia. Figure 1 Chlamydia Rates in Pennsylvania by Drilling Intensity Chlamydia rates per 1, people indexed to 25 (25=1) or more 1 to to 99 No, rural No, Urban Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Center for Disease Control and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Figure 11 Gonorrhea Rates in Pennsylvania by Drilling Intensity Gonorrhea rates per 1, people indexed to 25 (25=1) or more 1 to to 99 No, rural No, Urban Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Center for Disease Control and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 14

17 Motor Vehicle Fatalities Traffic fatalities involving trucks in the six high-drilling counties increased by a statistically significant 27.8% from 25 to 212 compared to 2 to 25. Looking at all traffic fatalities, not just those involving trucks, Pennsylvania s six high-drilling counties had about 37 more traffic fatalities in 212 than if the number of fatal accidents had followed the statewide trend. Although overall traffic fatality rates increased in the high-drilling counties, the difference with other groups of counties was not statistically significant. We observed no increase in truck-involved or overall motor vehicle fatalities in medium-drilling counties in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 2 Figure 12 Percent Change in Traffic Fatalities Involving Trucks from in Three High-Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 5% 499% 4% 3% 2% 1% 99% % -1% -35% Urban, no -17% Rural, no Bradford -64% Washington Susquehanna Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Center for the Management of Information for Safe and Sustainable Transportation and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 2 We did observe a decline of 11% in motor vehicle fatalities overall in low-drilling counties. 15

18 Figure 13 Percent Change in Traffic Fatality Rates in the High Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 12% 1% 19% 8% 6% 66% 4% 2% % 6% 17% -2% -4% -23% Urban, no -3% Rural, no Bradford -11% Tioga Washington -21% Lycoming Susquehanna Greene Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on Center for the Management of Information for Safe and Sustainable Transportation and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Rents Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative case studies of four drilling counties released in spring 214 revealed findings consistent with other research on housing impacts of booms in extractive industries. Out-of-state drilling industry workers created increased demand for temporary housing in Carroll County, Ohio, and in Greene and Tioga counties in Pennsylvania (Woodrum 214; Herzenberg, Polson, and Price, 214; Ward, Polson, and Price, 214). Existing hotels filled up and new hotels were added or planned. Tioga and Greene counties each built two new hotels (Coolidge 211; Herzenberg, Polson, and Price 214). Wetzel County, West Virginia, experienced a 7% increase in collections from a New Martinsville hotel room occupancy tax (O Leary 214). In Tioga, Greene, and Carroll counties, empty lots were being turned into RV sites, sometimes without adequate connections to water, sewer, or electrical systems (Woodrum 214, Herzenberg, Polson, and Price, 214; Ward, Polson, and Price, 214). Large housing stipends for oil and gas workers and limited supplies of housing translated into a doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling of rental rates, according to local interviews (Woodrum 214). In Tioga, classified ads in the Wellsboro Gazette documented a doubling or tripling of rents for comparable housing between 27-8 and 212 (Ward, Polson, and Price, 214). Rising rents created a shortage of affordable housing in Carroll County (Voinovich School and COHHIO 213). In Greene County, increased demand exacerbated a pre-existing shortage of affordable housing (Herzenberg, Polson, and Price, 214). Some residents had to move out of the county or live in substandard housing that lacked running water. Some landlords rented unlivable properties for high prices. 16

19 Sources in Tioga, Greene, and Carroll counties all reported increased homelessness (Woodrum 214, Herzenberg, Polson, and Price, 214; Ward, Polson, and Price, 214). The Tioga County Department of Human Services reported a four- to five-fold increase in households seeking help with housing (after it started tracking this number in August, 28) (Ward, Polson, and Price, 214). Tioga also reported a four-fold increase in the share of Head Start families who were homeless (from 6% in to 24% in ). Similarly, Greene County saw a jump in the number of children in foster care because of inadequate housing, from 12 in 28-9 to 36 in In Greene County, a local domestic violence organization reported that some clients found it more difficult to leave abusive situations because of the lack of affordable housing (Herzenberg, Polson, and Price 214). Exploring housing issues statistically is hampered by the fact that the American Community Survey (the primary source on rents) combines counties into multi-county areas that usually include high-drilling counties and counties with less or no drilling. In Map 2, the red lines show the county groupings for which data are reported in Pennsylvania. Four of the six Pennsylvania high-drilling counties are combined with low- or no-drilling counties, making it difficult to isolate changes where drilling is concentrated. Even the grouping of Washington and Greene counties, which are both highdrilling, prevents us from exploring statistically the impacts in Greene alone. Washington County is a highly populated urban region, which means that drilling demand is less likely to lead to large shifts in the overall housing market. Map 2 Crawford 3 Mercer 5 Lawrence 19 Beaver 25 Washington 755 Greene 517 Erie Butler 174 Allegheny 22 Venango 5 Fayette 23 Clarion 24 Armstrong 146 Warren 4 Forest 18 Westmoreland 23 Jefferson 38 Indiana 42 Somerset 26 McKean 61 Elk 61 Clearfield 147 Cambria 7 Bedford 1 Cameron 15 Blair 6 Potter 71 Centre 64 Huntingdon 1 Fulton Clinton 97 Tioga 811 Lycoming 662 Mifflin Juniata Perry Franklin Cumberland Adams Union Snyder Montour Dauphin York Bradford 1126 Sullivan 68 Columbia 3 Schuylkill Lancaster Susquehanna 646 Wyoming 112 Luzerne 2 Berks Chester Wayne 5 Monroe Carbon Northumberlan Northampton Lebanon Lackawanna 2 Lehigh Bucks Montgomery Delaware Pike Philadelphia Note. As a result of the construction of county groups in the ACS, some highdrilling counties are combined with counties that have few or no. Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative. No, urban No, rural 1 to 99 1 to or more PA County Groups 17

20 Despite these severe data limitations, considering the multi-county regions that include high-drilling counties as a group, median, low (2th percentile) and high (8th percentile) rents all increased from 25 to 212 by statistically significant amounts of 1.2%, 7.6% and 12.3%, respectively. Figure 14 shows separately the change in median and high rents for four regions that include one or more high-drilling counties and also include no-drilling rural areas. The figure shows clearly that rents have increased much more in regions that include high-drilling counties, especially at the 8th percentile. In Ohio, low and median rents were up 3.2% and 1.7%, respectively, in Carroll (112 drilled) and Stark (7 drilled) counties. Figure 14 Percent Change in Median and 8th Percentile (High) Rents in the Heaviest Drilling Counties in Pennsylvania 25% 2% 21.6% Median Rents 8th Percentile Rents 16.5% 15% 13.4% 13.9% 1% 9.4% 1.7% 5% 3.8% 7.% 3.4% 6.1% 6.5% 4.1% % Bradford, Sullivan, & Tioga Greene & Washington Clinton, Juniata, Lycoming, Mifflin, Snyder, & Union Pike, Susquehanna, & Wayne Urban PA no Rural PA no Source. Multi-State Shale Collaborative based on the American Community Survey microdata provided by Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5. [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,

21 Conclusion: Modest Job Gain but Also Community Impacts What is the takeaway from our analysis of data on community impacts of drilling and our prior case studies? Both our case studies and our statistical analysis of employment revealed modest employment and income benefits of shale development in high-drilling counties, especially in Greene County, Pennsylvania. This report reveals the other side of the coin: The high-drilling counties, measured by number of, also experienced negative community impacts, such as higher rates of crime, STDs, and traffic fatalities, and less affordable housing. Our findings are consistent with the qualitative picture of drilling impacts from case studies in Wyoming and other drilling states. High levels of drilling lead to an increase in employment, some of it as a result of an influx of transient out-of-state workers making higher-than-average wages. Drilling activity itself, out-of-state workers, and the increase in income and valuable (and portable) equipment and materials on drilling sites, contribute to increases in crime, traffic accidents, STD rate, and rents. Some of these impacts may have been mitigated in the Marcellus and Utica Shale regions by the lack of apparent increase in overall population; this may reflect, in addition to data limitations, the fact that rural drilling counties in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio are more densely populated than parts of the west. As a result, drilling counties in the east may have more pre-existing infrastructure and social services than their counterparts in Wyoming and North Dakota. Summing up, our research indicates that Marcellus and Utica Shale communities in which the scale of shale development is sufficient to move the needle on total employment and income are also communities likely to be faced with social challenges as a result of the drilling intensity. Communities with shale deposits where drilling has not yet occurred should understand this trade-off so that they can weigh their options in an informed way and prepare for the social impacts if drilling does expand to them. 19